Eduardo Navas writes:

    The film, as it is expected of any sequel, is terrible. Mainly
    because it is relying on ideas that at one point were innovative and
    by now have become naturalized by the media.

Okay, I guess, maybe ... but "terrible"?  If the measure of a film's
greatness is the number of novelties in thinking it contains, then I
guess the new Matrix is "terrible" -- though by that measure even lots
of highly respected films are terrible.  Of course even the first Matrix
wasn't "original" in that sense.  (I don't know what the point is of
talking about "ideologies" in the film -- why not stick to "ideas" since
"ideology" has a complicated and confused history that is probably not
necessary to go into in order to speak about this film in particular on
its own terms? unless you want to discuss the film or its success as a
symptom of broader historical or cultural or materialistic "forces"?).

I don't want to start a new discussion over whether the new Matrix is
philosophically respectable or whether criticisms of it are elitist,
etc.  We've done to death that with the original, as Eduardo points out.
 I do want to point out that what I do think is distinctive about this
film, as opposed to the first, is the extent to which it feels that the
ideas in it are not intended to speak about "reality" as such but about
the "reality" (i.e. make-believe world) that is realized in the film
itself.  The first film works quite well as an allegory -- like, say,
the allegory of the cave.  This film (Reloaded), it seems to me, isn't
speaking "about" anything else but itself -- though it draws on familiar
philosophical debates in order to do so.  In this respect it is like a
video game -- I guess -- where the point is not to change the world but
to figure it out.  The questions I found myself asking after the film
were not: "what is this film trying to say about the human condition"
but "how did Neo stop the sentinels if he's in the 'real' world now?"
and "what was the significance of all the 'possible Neos' we saw on the
screen when he was in the 'Maker's' room?"  and "was the 'Maker' guy
telling the truth: did he really just choose Trinity over the world, or
did he really just do what the Maker wanted him to do?" and "it seems
like the maker and the oracle are saying that to build a universe that
runs smoothly you have to have it be deterministic but you have to have
most people not believe that it is, and in order for that to work you
have to have a Messiah, an incarnate guy who is at the same time a god,
and can promise to his followers a kingdom apart, a Zion of sorts" etc.

I guess I liked the film because of the fact that it played with ideas
without really asserting anything about them -- I actually took it to be
less philosophically "pretentious" than the first (which I nevertheless
liked a lot), and more about the filmmakers creating a world for the
viewer to play in that involves both the anticipation/adrenaline
characteristic of action films, and the "intellectual puzzling"
characteristic of good sci-fi.  In (lots of) good sci-fi you are playing
with ideas as much as with scenarios.  When it gets too serious, and the
writer starts to take on the pretence of actually doing
philosophy/theology and not just using philosophical, scientific and
mystical ideas to tell a really cool story then there is a problem.
 Compare, for example, Phillip K. Dick's metaphysical essays and his
metaphysical stories.  The stories (e.g. Radio Free Albemuth, Valis,
Ubik, etc.) are great; the essays are just bizarre and way out there.

I think the Wachowskis clearly know themselves to be just telling a
story -- and we should remind ourselves that it is so far an unfinished
story -- about a make-believe world and a world or worlds within that
world.  Sure, they use old and rehashed philosophy (and religion) 101
type ideas in order to tell it.  But these ideas are nevertheless quite
interesting for those who encounter them the first time; and for those
who have seen them before, it is fun to see them put to use in new
contexts.  If I get students taking my intro to philosophy classes
because they thought the Matrix movies were "awesome" and they want to
understand the ideas further (this has already happened for some), I'll
be quite happy.

Nate


--
Nathan Andersen
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Collegium of Letters
Eckerd College
4200 54th Ave. S.             Phone: (727) 864-7551
St. Petersburg, FL 33712      Fax:   (727) 864-8354
U.S.A.                        E-mail: [log in to unmask]